U.S. patent application number 12/945602 was filed with the patent office on 2011-05-19 for decision aid device for assisting the landing of an aircraft on the deck of a ship.
This patent application is currently assigned to THALES. Invention is credited to Patrick CAZAUX, Patrick GARREC, Remi GEOFFROY, Yannick THIRY.
Application Number | 20110118910 12/945602 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 42246127 |
Filed Date | 2011-05-19 |
United States Patent
Application |
20110118910 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
GEOFFROY; Remi ; et
al. |
May 19, 2011 |
Decision Aid Device for Assisting the Landing of an Aircraft on the
Deck of a Ship
Abstract
A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft, the
aircraft being controlled remotely from a mobile station, such as a
ship, includes means for receiving data from the aircraft, notably
attitudes of the aircraft, the aircraft hovering ready to land on
deck, the deck-landing decision having to be taken under certain
conditions that must all be met, the device including a computer
making it possible to deliver temporal indicators indicating that
all the conditions are met. The device includes a temporal gauge
including a temporal graduation indicating mobile graphical zones
representing the periods during which all the conditions are met
for authorizing a deck-landing.
Inventors: |
GEOFFROY; Remi; (Saint
Medard en Jalles, FR) ; GARREC; Patrick; (Merignac,
FR) ; THIRY; Yannick; (Biganos, FR) ; CAZAUX;
Patrick; (Le Pian Medoc, FR) |
Assignee: |
THALES
Neuilly-sur-Seine
FR
|
Family ID: |
42246127 |
Appl. No.: |
12/945602 |
Filed: |
November 12, 2010 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
701/16 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G05D 1/0684 20130101;
B64C 2201/205 20130101; B64C 2201/146 20130101; G08G 5/0013
20130101; G08G 5/025 20130101; B64C 2201/024 20130101; B64F 1/18
20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
701/16 |
International
Class: |
G05D 1/00 20060101
G05D001/00 |
Foreign Application Data
Date |
Code |
Application Number |
Nov 13, 2009 |
FR |
09 05470 |
Claims
1. A device for aiding the deck-landing of a pilotless rotary-wing
aircraft on a mobile station, called a ship, the aircraft being
intended to be controlled remotely on the basis of said device,
comprising: means for receiving data from the aircraft, notably
attitudes of the aircraft and a computer, the aircraft hovering
ready to land on deck, the deck-landing decision having to be made
under certain conditions comprising a first set of predictive
criteria and a second set of non-predictive criteria, the
predictive criteria corresponding to parameters measured by the
computer and whose value may be extrapolated in the near future,
the said predictive criteria relating notably to the attitudes of
the aircraft and of the ship, the amplitude and the speed of the
swell, the strength and the direction of the wind on the deck of
the ship, the non-predictive criteria corresponding to parameters
not measurable by the computer, the non-predictive criteria
relating notably to the clearance of the said deck, wherein the
computer makes it possible to deliver at least one temporal
indicator indicating that the predictive criteria are favourable or
unfavourable to a deck-landing, and a display making it possible to
represent the indicator in a first state when the predictive
criteria are favourable to deck-landing.
2. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 1, wherein the device further comprises acknowledgement means
allowing an operator to acknowledge the non-predictive criteria,
the temporal indicator generated previously by the computer being
represented in a second state when the operator acknowledges the
non-predictive criteria.
3. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 1, wherein the temporal indicator comprises at least one
window scrolling over a time-graduated gauge.
4. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 3, wherein a time limit is defined in such a way that a
window sliding beyond this time limit and for which the window's
remaining time no longer allows the deck-landing of the aircraft,
no longer allows the operator to acknowledge the non-predictive
criteria for this window.
5. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 4, wherein the temporal indicator is represented in a third
state when the window oversteps the time limit whilst the operator
has acknowledged the non-predictive criteria.
6. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 4, wherein the temporal indicator is represented in a fourth
state when the window oversteps the time limit whilst the operator
has not acknowledged the non-predictive criteria.
7. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 1, wherein the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of at least one authorized maximum
deviation of an attitude of the ship.
8. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 1, wherein the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of at least one authorized maximum
deviation of an attitude of the aircraft.
9. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according to
claim 1, wherein the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of an authorized maximum deviation
of the amplitude of the swell.
10. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according
to claim 1, wherein the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of an authorized maximum deviation
of the strength of the wind at deck level.
11. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according
to claim 1, wherein the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the direction of the wind at deck level.
12. A device for aiding the deck-landing of an aircraft according
to claim 1, wherein the non-predictive criteria comprise the
finding that the zone of the deck is clear.
13. A device for aiding the deck-landing for an aircraft according
to claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises means for receiving the
data generated by the computer of the ship and display means making
it possible to display the temporal indicator.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] This application claims priority to foreign French patent
application No. FR 0905470, filed on Nov. 13, 2009, the disclosure
of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The present invention relates to the field of devices for
monitoring and checking a rotary-wing aircraft that is ready to
land on deck on a mobile vehicle such as a ship. More particularly,
the invention pertains to devices summarizing a certain number of
parameters relating to the landing conditions making it possible to
assist an operator by providing a decision aid.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] Generally, pilotless aircraft checking and monitoring
missions may be of various kinds. Notably, they may relate to the
checking of the takeoff or landing phases or else the checking of
the proper following of the flight plan during the navigation of
such an aircraft.
[0004] An operator usually has a display system at his disposal,
allowing him to check the behaviour of the aircraft. This system
allows the operator to make decisions such as a mission
cancellation decision or, if need be, a landing authorization
decision or else a continuation of the mission.
[0005] In the course of the takeoff or landing phases, the operator
must be reactive. In case of incidents, the mission must be rapidly
interrupted so as to provide for the safety, firstly, of the
onboard personnel in proximity to the landing zone and secondly, of
the craft itself.
[0006] When the landing or takeoff zone is mobile, a drawback stems
from the difficulty of making decisions rapidly to authorize the
manoeuvres of a remotely controlled aircraft while guaranteeing
maximum safety in the vicinity.
[0007] Typically, when the landing takes place on a ship, the
swell, the wind and the vertical motions of the aircraft and of the
ship may comprise risks in the execution of the manoeuvres.
[0008] A deck-landing is a manoeuvre involving numerous risks,
notably human risks for the personnel on the ship and hardware
risks be they to the aircraft or to the ship in the case of a
collision arising from a failed deck-landing.
[0009] Authorization for a deck-landing may be given only if all
the safety criteria are complied with. The criteria are fixed as a
function of each aircraft and of each ship. They may be for example
the following: [0010] the deck-landing zone is clear; [0011] the
attitudes of the aircraft and of the ship are within the limits,
notably yaw, roll, pitch, and speed; [0012] the amplitude of the
swell does not exceed a certain limit; [0013] the wind on the deck
is favourable, notably as regards its strength and its
direction.
[0014] These limits are established on the one hand as a function
of the physical characteristics of aircraft notably of their power
and of their weight and on the other hand as a function of the
capacities of the ship, notably of its size and of the height of
the deck. Finally these limits are established for various wind
directions and various amplitudes of the swell.
[0015] All these limits are established for a given aircraft/ship
pair.
[0016] The sequence of a landing of a rotary-wing aircraft is not
linear, unlike the sequence of a landing of a fixed-wing aircraft.
Notably, the expression linear sequence is understood to mean the
fact that a landing of a rotary-wing aircraft is tied to a duration
for which favourable deck-landing conditions are required. In the
landing of fixed-wing aircraft, an authorization is given and it
remains valid from the moment the authorization is given.
[0017] Concerning fixed-wing aircraft, the aircraft initiates its
deck-landing. A decision point makes it possible to verify, before
this point, that if all the deck-landing conditions are met then
the aircraft continues its deck-landing sequence otherwise it
performs a clearance procedure, that is to say it cancels the
deck-landing.
[0018] Indeed, the deck-landing sequence is generally as follows:
[0019] the aircraft nears the deck so as to initiate the
deck-landing; [0020] it then regains a position above the deck,
situated between 10 to 20 metres to the rear of the deck; [0021]
once this position has been regained, it is possible for it to land
on deck if the required conditions are all met; [0022] if these
conditions are not satisfied, the aircraft then commences a standby
phase while hovering; [0023] once the required conditions are
satisfied, it is authorized to land on deck.
[0024] Furthermore, the decision to land on deck, subsequent to a
hovering phase, is not automatic. It is carried out after
validation by an operator who is on the ship.
[0025] The operator must therefore ascertain in real time the
validity or otherwise of each of the required conditions so as to
authorize the deck-landing and thus terminate the phase of hovering
above the ship.
[0026] A problem encountered in this configuration is that the
hovering step is considered to be a risky step, the aircraft being
situated above the ship and therefore in a zone close to an
infrastructure where personnel are grouped together and being
moreover in an aerology disturbed by the ship.
[0027] Consequently, it is essential to limit the aircraft's
standby duration when it is hovering in a situation ready to land
on deck. The operator therefore has the responsibility of
authorizing deck-landing as soon as an opportunity arises while
ensuring a maximum level of safety. If the operator lacks a slot
when the conditions are all met, he must wait for a next slot. A
problem is that the next slot in which deck-landing will be
possible may arise only a few minutes later in order for all the
conditions favourable to deck-landing to be met depending on
alterations in these conditions.
[0028] Currently, the operator alone evaluates a certain number of
parameters whereby the deck-landing of an aircraft may or may not
be authorized. There is no device which enables the operator to be
afforded a decision aid notably a device which would enable the
operator's task to be lightened.
[0029] In particular, the deck-landing of a rotary-wing aircraft on
a mobile vehicle such as a ship is at present a risky
operation.
[0030] Currently, the operator on the ship is constrained to
evaluate compliance or otherwise with each of the criteria
favourable or unfavourable to deck-landing at each instant "t".
When all the criteria are met to authorize a deck-landing, the
operator can authorize a deck-landing by actuating a control which
allows the aircraft to be given a green light. The aircraft can
then go ahead with a procedure for landing on the ship's deck.
[0031] If the criteria are poorly judged by the operator through
lack of time or because of a human evaluation error, a risk may
arise during the deck-landing. On the other hand, if the operator
decides to wait for slots in which all the conditions for
authorizing a deck-landing are met, he may be caught off guard and
not have time to acknowledge the situation so as to transmit a
deck-landing directive to the aircraft. Thus one risk is to keep
the aircraft hovering in conditions which may cause an additional
risk.
[0032] A drawback in the latter case is that it increases the time
for which the aircraft is hovering above the ship and that it
increases the risks of accident when the meteorological conditions
are for example fluctuating. It is even possible that the aircraft
may quit its hovering situation and leave so as to recommence an
approach or find another solution.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0033] The invention is alleviates the aforementioned drawbacks.
The invention makes it possible to optimize the aid for assisting
an operator who must make a decision as to whether or not to
authorize an aircraft to land on the deck of a mobile vehicle. The
invention allows for the checking of a certain number of criteria
so as to determine predictive time windows during which a
deck-landing of the aircraft may be authorized. The windows are
generated by a computer, it gives a state of the favourable or
unfavourable conditions for authorizing a deck-landing in the near
future.
[0034] Advantageously, the device for aiding the deck-landing of an
aircraft, the aircraft being controlled remotely from a mobile
station, called a ship, comprises means for receiving data from the
aircraft, notably attitudes of the aircraft, the aircraft hovering
ready to land on deck, the deck-landing decision having to be made
under certain conditions that must all be met, the conditions
comprising a first set of predictive criteria and a second set of
non-predictive criteria.
[0035] Advantageously, the device comprises a computer making it
possible to deliver at least one temporal indicator indicating that
the predictive criteria are favourable or unfavourable to a
deck-landing, a display making it possible to represent the
indicator in a first state when the predictive criteria are
favourable.
[0036] Advantageously, the device comprises acknowledgement means
allowing an operator to acknowledge the non-predictive criteria,
the temporal indicator generated previously by the computer being
represented in a second state when the operator acknowledges the
non-predictive criteria.
[0037] Advantageously, the temporal indicator comprises at least
one window scrolling over a time-graduated gauge.
[0038] Advantageously, a time limit is defined in such a way that a
window sliding beyond this time limit and for which the window's
remaining time no longer allows the deck-landing of the aircraft,
no longer allows the operator to acknowledge the non-predictive
criteria for this window.
[0039] Advantageously, the temporal indicator is represented in a
third state when the window oversteps the time limit whilst the
operator has acknowledged the non-predictive criteria.
[0040] Advantageously, the temporal indicator is represented in a
fourth state when the window oversteps the time limit whilst the
operator has not acknowledged the non-predictive criteria.
[0041] Advantageously, the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of at least one authorized maximum
deviation of an attitude of the ship.
[0042] Advantageously, the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of at least one authorized maximum
deviation of an attitude of the aircraft.
[0043] Advantageously, the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of an authorized maximum deviation
of the amplitude of the swell.
[0044] Advantageously, the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the exceeding of an authorized maximum deviation
of the strength of the wind at deck level.
[0045] Advantageously, the predictive criteria comprise a value
corresponding to the direction of the wind at deck level.
[0046] Advantageously, the non-predictive criteria comprise the
finding that the zone of the deck is clear.
[0047] Advantageously, the aircraft comprises means for receiving
the data generated by the computer of the ship and display means
making it possible to display the temporal indicator.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0048] Other characteristics and advantages of the invention will
become apparent with the aid of the description which follows,
given in conjunction with the appended drawings which
represent:
[0049] FIG. 1: a configuration, in which the invention applies, of
an aircraft hovering above a ship;
[0050] FIG. 2: a predictive deck-landing window according to the
invention;
[0051] FIG. 3A: the appearance of two deck-landing windows in a
first state;
[0052] FIG. 3B: the two deck-landing windows in a second state;
[0053] FIG. 3C: the two deck-landing windows in a second and a
fourth state;
[0054] FIG. 3D: a deck-landing window in a third state;
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0055] FIG. 1 represents a configuration in which the invention
applies. It involves a typical case in which an aircraft 10 is
hovering above the ship. The aircraft, partly remotely controlled,
will undertake an on-ship deck-landing scenario if and only if it
is given authorization to land on deck.
[0056] The hovering aircraft 10 waits for a directive which may be
for example an acknowledgement of a deck-landing request dispatched
to the control tower 14 of the ship 11.
[0057] In FIG. 1, the aircraft 10 is hovering, in a position ready
to land on deck. The control tower 14 receives information from the
aircraft 10, notably as regards its vertical speed V1, its dynamics
such as its attitudes and certain flight conditions. The operator
must be able to check a certain number of criteria related to the
aircraft or independent of the aircraft so as to authorize or to
deny the deck-landing. In the case of denial, the aircraft keeps
hovering above the ship while awaiting a next authorization.
[0058] The operator must provide a directive to the aircraft making
it possible to start the deck-landing or otherwise. The
deck-landing comprises the descent of the aircraft 10 above the
deck of the ship 11 and then the landing proper when the aircraft
10 touches down on the ship 11 until it stabilizes.
[0059] The operator, who gives the deck-landing directive, must be
sure of a certain number of favourable criteria to validate the
directive authorizing the aircraft to land on deck. A solution of
the invention is aimed at providing the operator, by way of a
display, with a predictive indicator offering him time windows,
also called deck-landing windows, during which predictive criteria
are favourable to deck-landing.
[0060] The predictive criteria are notably the attitudes of the
aircraft and of the ship such as yaw, roll and pitch, the amplitude
and the speed of the swell, the strength and the direction of the
wind on the deck. These criteria correspond to parameters
measurable by a computer and whose value may be extrapolated in the
near future.
[0061] The extrapolation can be done through knowing initial or
current conditions and by the application by the computer of known
models. For example, alterations in the weather or the swell in the
near future may be extrapolated according to models.
[0062] The dynamics of the aircraft as well as that of the ship may
also be predicted in the near future on the basis of known initial
conditions.
[0063] Other criteria, termed non-predictive criteria, such as the
verification that the deck is clear may not be taken into account
by a computer.
[0064] The invention makes it possible to avail the operator of
means for acknowledging these criteria. They are then acknowledged
manually by the operator. The invention makes it possible to verify
that if a predictive indicator is favourable to deck-landing and
the operator acknowledges the non-predictive criteria, then a
deck-landing authorization is validated and is dispatched to the
aircraft.
[0065] An embodiment of the invention makes it possible to define
several states of the predictive indicator so as to indicate
graphically on this indicator whether or not the operator's
acknowledgement has been taken into account.
[0066] The predictive indicator comprises several states according
to whether the predictive or non-predictive criteria are favourable
to deck-landing and according to the actions of an operator. The
predictive indicator embraces at one and the same time the
evaluation of the predictive criteria, carried out by the computer,
and the evaluation of the non-predictive criteria, carried out by
the operator. The combination of these two evaluations leads to a
predictive indicator with four distinct states.
[0067] Each state comprises a representation which allows the
operator to ascertain the status of the set of criteria necessary
for the deck-landing.
[0068] A first state makes it possible to signal that only the
predictive criteria are favourable to deck-landing.
[0069] A second state making it possible to signal that the
non-predictive criteria are favourable to deck-landing, subsequent
to an acknowledgement from the operator.
[0070] This second state allows an operator, who would have
acknowledged the non-predictive criteria in advance, to know that
the deck-landing windows, which arrive, have taken this
acknowledgement into consideration. This avoids, in doubt, the need
for an operator to have to acknowledge a window several times.
[0071] A third state makes it possible to signal that the
non-predictive and predictive criteria are favourable to
deck-landing. This third state is active when the deck-landing
windows are then sufficiently close to the deck-landing to be taken
into account by the computer, that is to say a predefined time
limit makes it possible to test whether the prediction of the
deck-landing window is not too distant.
[0072] Finally a fourth state makes it possible to signal that the
predictive criteria are favourable to deck-landing but that the
operator has not acknowledged the non-predictive criteria in time.
In the latter case it will not be possible for the deck-landing to
be done in the deck-landing window whose representation indicates
this fourth state.
[0073] Accordingly, the invention comprises a computer which
evaluates the state of each of the predictive criteria over time
and deduces therefrom a set of windows of variable duration during
which the validity of the predictive criteria is satisfied.
[0074] The evaluation of the criteria is carried out by comparing
current values with thresholds predefined in the device of the
invention. Thus, it is possible to configure the desired degree of
safety for the deck-landing by predefining more or less critical
thresholds.
[0075] On the other hand, if the conditions are too severe to
authorize a deck-landing, the aircraft can keep hovering and wait
for a next authorization from the ship.
[0076] The invention therefore allows great adaptation to the
environmental conditions, notably in variants of the invention it
is possible to configure the number of predictive criteria to be
analysed by the computer.
[0077] The predictions proposed by the computer are re-evaluated
regularly. In one embodiment the criteria are re-evaluated every
second.
[0078] FIG. 2 represents an indicator 7 according to the invention
which is generated in a display 6.
[0079] The indicator 7 comprises a fixed graduated scale 1 and when
the predictions of the criteria evaluated by the computer are all
met as being favourable for the deck-landing of the aircraft then a
window 2 symbolizes the forthcoming duration for which the
deck-landing will be possible.
[0080] The operator can therefore validate the directive
authorizing the aircraft to land on deck in the form of an
acknowledgement making it possible to choose the window during
which the aircraft will be able to land on the ship's deck.
[0081] The invention allows the operator to have to check just a
single indicator for all the predictive criteria.
[0082] The fact that numerous criteria have to be validated is a
drawback that is resolved by the invention. Since all the
predictive criteria are handled by the computer and enables the
operator's tasks to be lightened.
[0083] The operator can therefore concentrate on the non-predictive
criteria such as the clearance of the deck-landing zone so as to
transmit the deck-landing directive. He can therefore evaluate,
while minimizing the assessment errors, the non-predictive criteria
instigating the aircraft's deck-landing sequence.
[0084] With the solution of the invention, the operator can give an
acknowledgement as soon as the first window appears. The hovering
time above the ship is thus limited and the risks of errors of
assessment of the predictive criteria are also reduced.
[0085] The invention therefore comprises an indicator which
comprises a graduated temporal gauge whose scale can be
parametrized by the operator. Within this gauge, the windows scroll
along the graduation in real time. They indicate the intervals
where the deck-landing may be carried out.
[0086] The intervals forming the predictive windows are generated
on the basis of a computer which makes it possible to ascertain the
instants in a forthcoming period where all the predictive criteria
satisfy certain predefined limits.
[0087] The window 2 scrolls in the example of FIG. 2 from right to
left.
[0088] The time remaining before reaching a window is read with the
aid of the graduations, in the example of FIG. 2, the start of the
window is marked by the side 5 of the window which is at the level
of the graduation indicating 10 s at the instant of reading.
Likewise, it is possible to read the time corresponding to the end
of the window with the aid of the side 4 which is at the level of
the graduation indicating 20 s.
[0089] It is understood by reading the indicator 7 that the
aircraft can land on deck in 10 s, this being so for a duration of
10 s.
[0090] If the directive is validated by the operator, then the
window 2 will be validated and a message will be dispatched to the
aircraft to indicate that the deck-landing procedure may be
instigated at a certain time.
[0091] The invention makes it possible to distinguish various
statuses of the predictive deck-landing windows. For example, in
one embodiment a colour code makes it possible to determine the
status of each of the windows.
[0092] Concerning the first state, a first colour, for example
yellow, makes it possible to represent a window on standby awaiting
acknowledgement by the operator. The window then indicates that the
predictive criteria in the time period of the window are validated
by the computer and that the non-predictive criteria which may be
validated only by the operator have not yet been acknowledged. This
involves the first state which corresponds to a temporary state in
which the predictive deck-landing window may be or may not be
validated by the operator.
[0093] If the operator does not acknowledge the window, it remains
in the same state until a certain limit time allowing the
validation of the window. This limit may be predefined, it may
correspond to a duration below which the aircraft will no longer
have time to receive the directive and to instigate a deck-landing
before the end of the window.
[0094] The window remains in a representation indicating that it is
in the first state until this time limit. No directive is
dispatched to the aircraft to land on deck until this limit.
[0095] Concerning the second state, a second colour makes it
possible to represent a time window when the operator has
acknowledged the non-predictive criteria in advance. This
configuration can occur when all the non-predictive criteria are
favourable to deck-landing and when a priori in the near future
nothing induces alterations in these criteria. The operator can
therefore acknowledge these criteria. In this case the deck-landing
windows scrolling over the display in the indicator change state
upon the acknowledgement of the operator and therefore make it
possible to remind the operator that the acknowledgement has
already taken place. This second state makes it possible to prevent
an operator from acknowledging a window several times when he is in
doubt as to whether he has done so. This second may be represented
by a colour filling in the deck-landing window which scrolls; this
may for example be blue.
[0096] Concerning the third state, a third colour makes it possible
to represent a time window during which the predictive criteria
have been evaluated as favourable to deck-landing by the computer
and the non-predictive criteria have been acknowledged by the
operator. This colour may be for example green.
[0097] In the latter case a directive is dispatched to the aircraft
which authorizes a deck-landing at an indicated time corresponding
to the period in which the deck-landing is possible.
[0098] Concerning the fourth state, a second colour, such as grey,
makes it possible to represent a window which has been rejected by
the operator. The latter not having acknowledged the non-predictive
criteria in time. The aircraft will therefore not be able to land
on deck in the course of this window. With the passage of the
previously defined limit, the window changes state, it is then in
the fourth state. The change of state may be represented on the
display by a change of colour of the deck-landing window.
[0099] In the example of FIG. 2, the window, where the predictive
criteria are favourable to deck-landing arising, is not yet
acknowledged by the operator. This window is still in the first
state for the following reason: the operator has not acknowledged
the window because one of the non-predictive criteria is not
favourable to the deck-landing of the aircraft. For example, this
criterion may be: "there are personnel in the deck-landing
zone".
[0100] The invention therefore allows the generation of a time
gauge over which at least one window with the following attributes
scrolls: [0101] a start time represented by the side 5 of the
window of FIG. 2; [0102] an end time represented by the side 4 of
the window of FIG. 2; [0103] a colour according to the state;
[0104] The invention makes it possible to implement various
scenarios.
[0105] FIG. 3A represents the appearance of two deck-landing
windows 21, 22.
[0106] The computer has provided a first deck-landing window 21 and
a second deck-landing window 22 whose characteristics are: [0107]
start of the first window in 8 seconds and end of the first window
in 14 seconds; [0108] start of the second window in 20 seconds and
end of the second window in 40 seconds.
[0109] The operator has given no acknowledgement of the
non-predictive parameters. The windows are represented in such a
way that the operator views straight away the state of the
deck-landing windows.
[0110] In FIG. 3A, two windows 21, 22 of different size appear.
They are represented with a certain colour which is represented in
FIG. 3A by a block comprising dots. This representation makes it
possible to understand that only the predictive criteria have been
acknowledged. The operator has not yet acknowledged the windows 21,
22 signifying that the non-predictive criteria have not been
validated by the operator or that he judges for example that a
window is too short. In the latter case he waits for the next
deck-landing window.
[0111] FIG. 3B represents the typical case of FIG. 3A when the
operator has already acknowledged the non-predictive criteria
before the deck-landing windows are generated by the computer. In
this case the deck-landing windows are represented with another
colour or a pattern other than in the typical case of FIG. 3A.
[0112] The operator then knows that the non-predictive criteria
have already been acknowledged, thereby avoiding any doubt on his
part that might induce him to reacknowledge the non-predictive
criteria.
[0113] FIG. 3C represents the case of FIG. 3A but a few seconds
later. The predictive deck-landing window 21 has not been
acknowledged by the operator; it is therefore rejected. That is to
say no directive will be dispatched to the aircraft authorizing the
deck-landing during the period corresponding to the window 21.
[0114] The computer has provided a first deck-landing window 21 and
a second deck-landing window 22 whose characteristics are: [0115]
start of the first window in 0 seconds and end of the first window
in 6 seconds, [0116] start of the second window in 12 seconds and
end of the second window in 32 seconds;
[0117] At the instant of FIG. 3C, the operator has given no
acknowledgement for either of the two windows arising.
[0118] In a first variant embodiment, the operator is given the
possibility of allocating an acknowledgement to one of the windows
arising in the indicator 7.
[0119] In a second variant embodiment, the operator's
acknowledgement relates to the next window displayed for which the
computer has validated the predictive deck-landing criteria.
[0120] In one embodiment the overly short duration windows, for
which the criteria favourable to a deck-landing are all met, are
not displayed. The operator can configure a minimum duration for
which the criteria favourable to deck-landing must all be met.
[0121] It is necessary for the aircraft to have a minimum time to
approach the deck-landing zone. The invention makes it possible to
take this constraint into consideration.
[0122] The window 21 which is dotted in FIG. 3A comprises stripes
in FIG. 3C signifying that it has changed state. In the figures,
colours have been replaced with patterns.
[0123] The change of state of the predictive deck-landing window 21
signifies that the operator has not acknowledged the non-predictive
criteria in time. A certain limit passes, meaning that the operator
can no longer acknowledge a window.
[0124] The invention makes it possible to define a time limit 32
beyond which the operator can no longer acknowledge the current
window, this limit is chosen such that the aircraft has time to
receive the directive so as to be able to execute it, that is to
say to land on deck. Generally, before carrying out the
deck-landing while waiting for a favourable directive from the
ship, the aircraft is positioned at a particular point above the
deck, hovering ready to begin the deck-landing; this point is
called the waiting point. The waiting point may also be slightly
shifted with respect to the deck for safety. In this typical case,
the mean duration to land on deck, that is to say between the
waiting point and the landing point, is known. This mean duration
makes it possible to configure in the device of the invention the
time limit.
[0125] In an exemplary embodiment, the duration of this time limit
may be 6 seconds, as represented in FIG. 3C.
[0126] When the time limit to acknowledge a window has passed, the
computer no longer makes it possible to take the operator's
acknowledgement into account. The state of the window is therefore
modified, the window passes to a "denied" status. In this case,
even if the operator gives his acknowledgement to generate a
deck-landing directive, it will no longer be possible to validate
the window 21 in FIG. 3B. The acknowledgement of the non-predictive
criteria of the operator will be taken into account for a next
window which will pass to the previously defined fourth state.
[0127] Finally, FIG. 3D represents the same case as FIGS. 3A and 3B
but the window 21 has passed and is no longer represented. The
predictive deck-landing window 22 then scrolls too. In this
scenario, the operator has acknowledged the window 22. It has
changed state, its representation indicates that a directive will
be dispatched to the aircraft authorizing it to land on the ship's
deck.
[0128] The computer has provided a second deck-landing window 22
whose characteristics are at the instant of FIG. 3D: start of the
second window in 0 seconds and end of the second window in 20
seconds;
[0129] The operator has given his acknowledgement of the
non-predictive criteria so that the aircraft commences its
deck-landing.
[0130] The window 22, still temporary in FIG. 3B, has now been
acknowledged by the operator. This is represented in a distinct
manner in the indicator represented on the display 6.
[0131] Under these conditions, the aircraft can start its
deck-landing from the moment when the state of the window 22 has
changed in such a way that the aircraft touches down on the deck of
the ship before the side 4 of the window reaches the graduation 0
of the gauge. That is to say the deck-landing starts in such a way
that the aircraft touches down when the graduation 0 is situated in
the current deck-landing window.
[0132] In one embodiment, a first interior margin 30 of the window
22 for the side 5 and a second interior margin 31 of the window 22
for the side 4 may be preconfigured in such a way that the aircraft
does not touch down on the deck at the limit of the time during
which it is authorized to land on deck. The margins 30, 31 are
represented in FIG. 3C.
[0133] In one mode of implementation the margin may be one
second.
[0134] The invention therefore comprises numerous advantages,
notably it makes it possible to embrace all the predictive criteria
within a single indicator which comprises temporal symbols.
[0135] Each symbol advantageously represents a duration for which
the predictive criteria are favourable to a deck-landing.
Furthermore, each symbol corresponding to a duration called a
predictive deck-landing window. It is represented in real time on a
graduated temporal gauge. This representation allows an operator to
act with awareness while checking and monitoring the non-predictive
criteria.
[0136] The invention therefore allows the deck-landing phases to be
made safe by guaranteeing that the operator's check is redundant in
respect of the predictive criteria of a computer's check.
* * * * *